Friday, November 30, 2012

The best thing for the baseball writers to do is elect Craig Biggio unanimously and show those who took steroids — and send a message to those considering using them — that going against the game’s rules, not playing naturally can, and will, hurt your career. It’s clear Bonds had his issues with steroids and Sosa came forward confessing he used them during the peak of his career.

Biggio is just the best choice of the top four popular names on the list anyway because no one played with more effort, more heart and more dedication than him. Clemens was a great competitor, so was Lee Smith — who had a great career as a closer and is also highly favored on the ballot — but Biggio did everything but pitch. Biggio was the kind of guy who made pitchers take deep breaths before every pitch because they really had to concentrate to face him. He did everything to beat you offensively. He made hitters and runners groan when he snagged the ball defensively because he very rarely messed up. And when he did he made up for it on the next play or at-bat.

...A franchise can only have so many faces as each baseball season comes along and Biggio is certainly one of Houston’s many — and in most eyes he is the only.

There are a number of players waiting for that opportunity to get “the call” with the voice on the other end telling them they’ve been elected to the National Baseball Hall Of Fame and Biggio should be the one who gets it this year. A lot of folks will say that if he doesn’t get in now, he’ll get in eventually. Well okay, I get their logic, but if he’s going to get in eventually, let’s just put him in now and not someone who needs to work his way back in to the hearts of baseball fans after a steroid controversy.

If it were up to me, I’d like to see both Biggio and Smith go in. That’d be quite the induction class to go along with former Cardinals shortstop Marty Marion, who seems to be highly considered by the Veterans Committee.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

The former. I try to avoid making jokes about the less fortunate in the presence of a preacher man.

Rooting for the Astros has been fun for most of my life. Doesn't get much better than 2004 ('05 was good, too). I have moved to a place where I can't watch them every day since they've been stinky, so it has been just as well.

Unfortunately, I am also equally, if not more so, a fan of the Royals.

- How do you know she is a witch
- She looks like one.
- Bring her forward.
- I'm not a witch! I'm not a witch !
- But you are dressed as one.
- They dressed me like this.
- No, we didn't.
- And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
- Well? - We did do the nose.
- The nose? - And the hat. But she is a witch !
- Did you dress her up like this?
- No, no! Yes. A bit.
- She has got a wart.
- What makes you think she's a witch?
- She turned me into a newt!
- A newt?
- I got better.
- Burn her anyway!
- Quiet! Quiet!
- There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
- Are there? What are they? Tell us. - Do they hurt?
- Tell me, what do you do with witches?
- Burn them!
- And what do you burn, apart from witches?
- More witches! - Wood!
- So why do witches burn?
- 'Cause they're made of wood? - Good!
- How do we tell if she is made of wood?
- Build a bridge out of her.
- But can you not also make bridges out of stone?
- Oh, yeah.
- Does wood sink in water?
- No, it floats.
- Throw her into the pond!
- What also floats in water?
- Bread. Apples. Very small rocks. Cider! Great gravy. Cherries. Mud. Churches. Lead.
- A duck!
- Exactly.
- So, logically--
- If she weighs the same as a duck...
- she's made of wood.
- And therefore?
- A witch!
- A duck! A duck!
- Here's a duck.
- We shaIl use my largest scales.
- Burn the witch !
- Remove the supports!
- A witch!
- It's a fair cop.

Total roidhead. He played with Ken Caminiti AND Jeff Bagwell AND Jim Deshaies. Yes, him, the man who led the league, at the very end of his career, in Games Started (25) and HR allowed (30 in 130 IP). Impossible not to see the connection.

EDIT: I had to go back and make sure I was right, but they did play together. And they played with Luis Gonzalez (roder) Tony Eusibio (roider) Curt Schilling (AHole) Gary Cooper (actor) Jerry Jones (NFL spy) and Darryl Kile (Dead guy). That 91 Astros team needs to be investigated...

There is no reason to suspect Jeff Bagwell of PEDs and not Craig Biggio. That's ridiculous.

This. Biggio had a big power spike at about the same time as did Bagwell (a year earlier, actually), adding 100 points to his SLG. And after two subpar years in 2002 and 2003 he jumped back up, having his two best HR seasons at ages 38 and 39. They were products of the same clubhouse culture. Why on earth would you suspect Bagwell and not Biggio?

This is one of the dumbest articles I've read yet. I suspect Biggio of steroids even more strongly than Bagwell, and the author's primary thesis is that supporting Biggio alone is a vote for the sanctity of the game and a statement against steroids. It boils down to a steroids = HRs logic, and even if that were the prevailing logic about steroids, the evidence still doesn't paint such a nice picture towards Biggio. It's stupid. And that second paragraph is just cringe-inducing all the way through.

A lot of folks will say that if he doesn’t get in now, he’ll get in eventually. Well okay, I get their logic, but if he’s going to get in eventually, let’s just put him in now and not someone who needs to work his way back in to the hearts of baseball fans after a steroid controversy.

What does this even mean? Who wrote this? It sounds like a high school paper, honestly.

Do you want the truth or do you want to watch me hit lots of dingers ... and lots of doubles and take bases on balls and field my position with aplomb and run the bases well especially relative to the other oxen playing my position?